I think the most valuable way for us to use obsec in this edition will be to send small squads to disrupt someone else's obsec. If both sides do, then no one does, and it goes back to model quantity.
Gelmir Sybarite
Posts : 344 Join date : 2018-01-06 Location : near Rotterdam
I like how it says "the entire Eldar race" and yet actual druhkari aren't mentioned, the only representation the druhkari will probably get is a passive mention as part of the ynnari force that shows up
I'm OK with that. I don't want to be dragged into Ynnari storylines, I want Drukhari storylines. Can't see much motivation for a Dark Eldar force to rock up and protect those maiden worlds, unless they want to keep them as prime raiding sites or a Haemonculus fancies catching a few nids to experiment on.
Apparently supercharging Plasma is more punishing now, in the example page of the core rules there were the rules fro new marines and the Sargent's pistol had Plasma stats, apparently a unmodified roll for 1 kills the wielder outright. Nice that Plasma isn't just 'free' extra dmg and str anymore. I would however be surprised if that carried over to the bigger vehicle and walker based Plasma.
amishprn86 Archon
Posts : 4436 Join date : 2014-10-04 Location : Ohio
Plasma is LESS deadly now, it always killed on a 1, but you could mod it before so a -1 to hit meant a 1 or a 2 killed the user, thats why no one took them in comp games with -1, -2, -3 everywhere.
Well I stand corrected then, I remembered wrong, that getting a 1 with supercharged plasma just made a single mortal per a 1. Unfortunately I think any minuses to hit should not make it blow-up easier, balance-wise, and likewise any increases to hit should ever negate the risk either. I think this wording is better in my opinion, even if it hurts me if run into any plasma combos in the future. Thanks for the correction.
New Eldar craftworld? New Masque? War with Nids? Combines Aeldari army? New xenos race? Someone dropped a bomb...
Sounds like Hrud. Also like they've rewritten or at least reimagined Valedor. Though in Valedor we were actually involved, whereas here it sounds like we aren't, unless they are being very flexible with their definition of 'corsair'.
Anyone else notice the new re-roll stratagem is only for certain stuff? Any native re-rolls will be more valuable now (looking at you Power from Pain).
I agree that Wych Cults are looking interesting for the flyer Test of Skill combination. Not sure if 2 RWJF with ToS is better than 2 Ravagers and 2 RWJF under Black Heart.
Anyone else notice the new re-roll stratagem is only for certain stuff? Any native re-rolls will be more valuable now (looking at you Power from Pain).
I agree that Wych Cults are looking interesting for the flyer Test of Skill combination. Not sure if 2 RWJF with ToS is better than 2 Ravagers and 2 RWJF under Black Heart.
Yeah it's been hinted at but not directly mentioned. Agents of Vect, for instance, cannot be re-rolled anymore.
BH isn't defunct, but their main stratagem just dropped from being useful 35/36 times to 5/6. I certainly won't be taking them anymore.
AlCorps Hellion
Posts : 45 Join date : 2011-09-04 Location : Ireland
I tried a 1000k point game last night against nurgle/TS. I had 2 BH ravagers, 4 Techno Raiders, archon, haem, drazhar, and 4 troops. Opponent had 3 plagueburst crawlers, 15 tzaangors, ahriman, a sorc, and a nurgle daemon prince. I'll go through the bad stuff then the good stuff.
The bad: - Not being able to fall back and shoot with skimmers suuucks! Really annoying to get tied in combat, while the PBCs can still shoot at you in combat. Has to use fall-back-and-shoot strat a lot. - Didn't use Vect, not worth the CP cost and risk without a reroll. - Obscured rule can be a trap. Several times I positioned a raider so troops could disembark on the other side of a ruin wall, only to remember group floor is not LoS blocking any more. Need to be more careful in planning where troops can land. - Only 2 Ravagers didn't feel right. Need to think a bit more about how to use the Raiding Party patrols.
The good: - I massively outscored on the primary objective by piling Ob-Sec troops onto objectives. It appears to be very important to have the speed to get troops onto enemy objectives, denying hold-two and hold-more until the last turns, when your opponent can't catch up anymore. Speedy transports and movement abilities (Quicken, Warptime, Move Move Move, Swarmlord) are going to be great. - We have enough MSU troops to sacrifice a few each turn to maintain board control and keep ahead on hold/hold-more. - Disintegrators are still great (depending on points). Techno raiders doing 3 damage to units and characters saved the day. - Raiding Party really does seem essential get get the different sub-faction buffs we want. Unless you are really sure to take a mono-battalion, be prepared to use 3 patrols.
sekac likes this post
amishprn86 Archon
Posts : 4436 Join date : 2014-10-04 Location : Ohio
- Obscured rule can be a trap. Several times I positioned a raider so troops could disembark on the other side of a ruin wall, only to remember group floor is not LoS blocking any more. Need to be more careful in planning where troops can land.
Are you sure that you were playing this correctly? Being inside the terrain piece just means that LOS can be drawn to the models inside in standard TLOS fashion. If it was a solid wall that blocked TLOS, it would still block LOS, or was it a wall with holes and windows in it that allowed your opponent to see your troops?
- Only 2 Ravagers didn't feel right. Need to think a bit more about how to use the Raiding Party patrols.
same feel..my old sperhead..dethachment is gone..and at 2000 point i feel to the loss.. some paper testing of new edition bring me to 10cp..because if you take a 3 classic patrol we have the bottleneck of alliance of agony and price of the dark city.. are almost a MUST..for the succubus with blood glaive and 3+ invulnerability and the raider..with 28 feet of movement and charge.. at same time the homunculus for master artisan traits..
the big big problem is that sperhead with warlord inside don't give back the 3 cp.. so if we do patrol (witch) patrol (coven) and sperhead..we have 7cp... Bring a battalion is very point ineffective.. this is my major complain of new rules..
As I understand the new rules, the passangers can shoot in close combat not only with pistols, as all the rules applied to the vehicle also apply to the guys inside. Or am I wrong?
amishprn86 Archon
Posts : 4436 Join date : 2014-10-04 Location : Ohio
RAW the passengers should be able to shoot in engagement range. The qualifier is any restrictions that apply to the vehicle. An errata would be needed for clarity.
Ubernoob1 Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 160 Join date : 2013-04-20 Location : Newport News, Virginia
RAW the passengers should be able to shoot in engagement range. The qualifier is any restrictions that apply to the vehicle. An errata would be needed for clarity.
While the FaQ/Errata is obviously needed, unfortunately I would argue that as of current intent behind the wording of open-topped, it also mentions that the passengers do NOT benefit from the vehicle having the Fly keyword should it fall back.
Now, technically anything can happen and they may be lenient and write in something. But if it comes down to not having any errata changing the wording of Open-Topped, I would make the argument that the passengers themselves do not possess the vehicle or monster keyword, and thus do not benefit from Big Guns Never Tire (shooting while in engagement range). Just like how if a kabalite squad is equipped with a dark lance and the raider moves, they are still penalized on the to hit roll even though the raider is not for it's own dark lance.
krayd Hekatrix
Posts : 1343 Join date : 2011-10-03 Location : Richmond, VA
RAW the passengers should be able to shoot in engagement range. The qualifier is any restrictions that apply to the vehicle. An errata would be needed for clarity.
While the FaQ/Errata is obviously needed, unfortunately I would argue that as of current intent behind the wording of open-topped, it also mentions that the passengers do NOT benefit from the vehicle having the Fly keyword should it fall back.
That is no longer relevant to 9th edition, as FLY no longer conveys any shooting benefit when falling back.
harlokin Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 142 Join date : 2013-07-24 Location : London
What i'm saying in the core rules Open top has not been changed b.c that rule is only on datasheets. It most likely will has a faq, i'm 99% sure it will.
I don't think blast pistols on Sybarites is worth it still. Maybe more so on Hexatrix's as ToS b.c the +1 to wound.
Ubernoob1 Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 160 Join date : 2013-04-20 Location : Newport News, Virginia
RAW the passengers should be able to shoot in engagement range. The qualifier is any restrictions that apply to the vehicle. An errata would be needed for clarity.
While the FaQ/Errata is obviously needed, unfortunately I would argue that as of current intent behind the wording of open-topped, it also mentions that the passengers do NOT benefit from the vehicle having the Fly keyword should it fall back.
That is no longer relevant to 9th edition, as FLY no longer conveys any shooting benefit when falling back.
Yes, I know the line SPECIFICALLY has no more relevance. I simply meant to say that my assumption of what GWs intent was or will be is that the passengers do not benefit from the keyword rules that the transport itself gets. Again, I could be wrong and they may decided otherwise (GW has flip flopped on rulings before quite often), but my gut feeling based on the above information as it currently stands is that passengers will not be allowed to fire non-pistol weaponry while engaged in melee.
harlokin Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 142 Join date : 2013-07-24 Location : London
RAW the passengers should be able to shoot in engagement range. The qualifier is any restrictions that apply to the vehicle. An errata would be needed for clarity.
While the FaQ/Errata is obviously needed, unfortunately I would argue that as of current intent behind the wording of open-topped, it also mentions that the passengers do NOT benefit from the vehicle having the Fly keyword should it fall back.
That is no longer relevant to 9th edition, as FLY no longer conveys any shooting benefit when falling back.
Yes, I know the line SPECIFICALLY has no more relevance. I simply meant to say that my assumption of what GWs intent was or will be is that the passengers do not benefit from the keyword rules that the transport itself gets. Again, I could be wrong and they may decided otherwise (GW has flip flopped on rulings before quite often), but my gut feeling based on the above information as it currently stands is that passengers will not be allowed to fire non-pistol weaponry while engaged in melee.
Yup. And yet they will also doubtless be prevented from shooting if the vehicle falls back...worst of all possible worlds.
it would make no sense that the vehicle can shoot in melee but the guys that are literally hanging on to it cant... But then again GW and logic dont mix well
Subject: Re: 40k 9th Editon 
Mon Jul 06 2020, 20:07
